Pretty interesting to see Howe at #4 on many lists. IMHO it's hard to find a reason why Howe should be below Orr and Mario. Gordie is closer to Gretzky than Orr/Lemieux to Howe.

I think one could say that Lemieux peaked higher then Howe and that Orr had at least as good a package as him, but was better both offensively(Playing from the D) and defensively, that only the physical part clearly goes to Gordie. One has a hard time to not recognize Orrs dominance from the back end and personally i think he was better than Gretzky.

I think one could say that Lemieux peaked higher then Howe and that Orr had at least as good a package as him, but was better both offensively(Playing from the D) and defensively, that only the physical part clearly goes to Gordie. One has a hard time to not recognize Orrs dominance from the back end and personally i think he was better than Gretzky.

Yes, it's all nice, but staying healthy is a skill. And Howe was a top player for 20+ years. And lets not forget that Howe also dominated his peers by the ridiculous margin during his peak. He was also by far the best player in the league during his best years. So it's not 100% clear that Orr and Lemieux had better peak. And even if they had, the difference is certainly not big enough to match extra 10 years of elite hockey that Howe has on them.

Yes, it's all nice, but staying healthy is a skill. And Howe was a top player for 20+ years. And lets not forget that Howe also dominated his peers by the ridiculous margin during his peak. He was also by far the best player in the league during his best years. So it's not 100% clear that Orr and Lemieux had better peak. And even if they had, the difference is certainly not big enough to match extra 10 years of elite hockey that Howe has on them.

For sure he has the longivity to rely on, and a very good and pretty long peak although it was'nt as long as some might think. A person that values peak a little higher than longivity however i can see having Orr in front, and perhaps Lemieux as well. I am one of those people that values peak vs. career at maybe 65-35 and gets a tie between Howe and Lemieux becouse of it.

Lidstrom ahead of Harvey because of longevity and comparable accomplishments against players from all over the world (I guess the same could be said for Bourque, who I also have ahead of Harvey despite that not being standard). Not set in stone though, these three are almost interchangeable.

Howe behind Lemieux because he only had Lemieux-esque dominance over the league for a handful of years. Lemieux had no peer pretty much from his sophomore season until he decided to quit. Then he came back and once again produced like a god. Even though he missed a lot of games, he isn't a question mark, he played enough to demonstrate exactly what kind of supernatural talent he was, so I don't care about his lack of longevity.

Yes, it's all nice, but staying healthy is a skill. And Howe was a top player for 20+ years. And lets not forget that Howe also dominated his peers by the ridiculous margin during his peak. He was also by far the best player in the league during his best years. So it's not 100% clear that Orr and Lemieux had better peak. And even if they had, the difference is certainly not big enough to match extra 10 years of elite hockey that Howe has on them.

Not sure that staying healthy is a skill per say, although guys can do things to take care of themselves but it's usually bad luck.

That being said I agree that longevity and especially at a top level does and should count for something and it does in my book.

Yes, it's all nice, but staying healthy is a skill. And Howe was a top player for 20+ years. And lets not forget that Howe also dominated his peers by the ridiculous margin during his peak. He was also by far the best player in the league during his best years. So it's not 100% clear that Orr and Lemieux had better peak. And even if they had, the difference is certainly not big enough to match extra 10 years of elite hockey that Howe has on them.

Exactly. I don't understand the argument that Orr and his 10 seasons overall were superior to Howe and his 26. Howe lapped the NHL in the early 1950s. We never really saw that dominance from another player until Gretzky. Orr might have been better at his peak than Howe, but it isn't by much and Howe has an entire decade after that of elite play. Most of use put Gretzky at #1. But to be honest, what I think should almost be as unanimous is Howe at #2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan

Modern players only and basing it on how good they were in their primes not careers

Even if you ignore every player that played in the NHL prior to the 1980s (which is strange to do on a History board) that is still a weird list there. Also even if you base it on their primes. By your logic the first two are fine. But Pronger had a better prime than Lemieux and Jagr? Bure over Bourque? I assume that's Scott Stevens at #10 as well and while he's a lock cinch HHOFer he has no business on this list, not even by the standards you have.

Not sure that staying healthy is a skill per say, although guys can do things to take care of themselves but it's usually bad luck.

That being said I agree that longevity and especially at a top level does and should count for something and it does in my book.

Well if we are talking about Mario then his back problems are probably not bad luck. Chronic back pain is usually caused by doing something wrong. Like having wrong training methods (or no methods) in youth.

As with Orr and his bad knees. Yes, you can't really blame him if others went after his knees. Although there is a reason why for example Howe played so long and was pretty healthy. Players knew that if they went after him, then Howe would open their skull, next time. Nobody really wanted to mess with him. Same can't be said about Orr.

Gretzky is the best player ever. Period. Lemieux was the most dominate player despite his injuries. 7th all time in points and yet the only player in the top 35 point scores ever to play under 1k games. Seriously dominate. Orr was excellent as a defenseman, but way too short of a career. Flip side, Howe was great, but a lot of this was longevity IMO.

I know I'm missing Harvey, Shore, and a couple other. I seriously know so little about them, I have no idea where to put them. I threw Morenz in there because of nostalgia and the original superstar of hockey.

The more I look at this list, the less likely I am seeing any of the new guns breaking into this list as it is. Gonna take some crazy years for any current player (beside Jagr) to make it into the top 10.

Gretzky is the best player ever. Period. Lemieux was the most dominate player despite his injuries. 7th all time in points and yet the only player in the top 35 point scores ever to play under 1k games. Seriously dominate. Orr was excellent as a defenseman, but way too short of a career. Flip side, Howe was great, but a lot of this was longevity IMO.

I know I'm missing Harvey, Shore, and a couple other. I seriously know so little about them, I have no idea where to put them. I threw Morenz in there because of nostalgia and the original superstar of hockey.

The more I look at this list, the less likely I am seeing any of the new guns breaking into this list as it is. Gonna take some crazy years for any current player (beside Jagr) to make it into the top 10.

Morenz is highly overrated IMO. Take the case of Marty Barry. Barry's career overlapped with Morenz's for eight seasons. Barry outscored Morenz five times, Morenz outscored Barry three times. Barry has a comparable career PPG.

One of them is considered an All-Time great, another is "just another pre-O6 player".

Morenz is highly overrated IMO. Take the case of Marty Barry. Barry's career overlapped with Morenz's for eight seasons. Barry outscored Morenz five times, Morenz outscored Barry three times. Barry has a comparable career PPG.

One of them is considered an All-Time great, another is "just another pre-O6 player".

Morenz is highly overrated IMO. Take the case of Marty Barry. Barry's career overlapped with Morenz's for eight seasons. Barry outscored Morenz five times, Morenz outscored Barry three times. Barry has a comparable career PPG.

One of them is considered an All-Time great, another is "just another pre-O6 player".

Although it's factually correct that Barry outscored Morenz during the eight years where their careers overlapped, this is highly misleading for several reasons:

- This eight year comparison includes virtually all of Barry's offensive prime (he was a top ten scorer just once for the remainder of his career) while it excludes the majority of Morenz's prime (five out of the seven times that "l'homme eclair" finished in the top five in scoring fall outside your period of comparison).

- During the first six seasons where their careers overlapped (1930 to 1935), Morenz convincingly outscored Barry 240-218 while playing fewer games - and again, this excludes the majority of Morenz's best seasons. Barry was only able to catch up due to Morenz slowing down in 1936 and 1937 due to age (he also missed around a quarter of the 1937 season due to his career-ending, and some believe life-ending, leg injury).

- Barry never won the Hart and placed in the top five once (5th in 1937). Morenz won the Hart three times (1928, 1931, 1932) and was also runner-up in 1925.

- Morenz was routinely considered one of the great players of the first half of the 20th century (along with Shore, Nighbor, Taylor, etc). Barry was never anywhere close.

This is almost like comparing Tony Amonte to Steve Yzerman from 1996 to 2004 and concluding that Yzerman is "highly overrated" because Yzerman is considered an "all-time great" while Amonte is "just another dead puck era player" (and Amonte does in fact outscore Yzerman during this carefully-selected period which includes Amonte's offensive prime but excludes Yzerman's).